Hardly proves your point. They were just a team literally "out of their league".

Well you can't get a much smaller league then 4 teams. The point I was refuting was that reducing the size of SL to 10 teams would result in the teams being more equal in ability because it was a smaller league. This just dosn't follow the one from the other.

Well you can't get a much smaller league then 4 teams. The point I was refuting was that reducing the size of SL to 10 teams would result in the teams being more equal in ability because it was a smaller league. This just dosn't follow the one from the other.

My gut feeling is based on the extreems where if the top four clubs played each other all the time we'd get a certain level of results including blow out scores. If the top four played the bottom four in a sixteen team league you'd also get mixed results including blow out scores. I'd guess at a lot more.

Inclusiveness may lead to more "foregone conclusions" foregone conclusions aren't too good at attracting fans.

I remember Leeds playing in the old one division in which you played all the clubs in your county. Some dreadful one sided games in those days and some dreadful crowds.

You would expect that because Leeds played what today are CC clubs and CC1 clubs in league fixtures. So Leeds v Doncaster and Leeds v Keighley and Leeds v Dewsbury would be league fixtures. There were some huge blowouts and that's one of the reasons they went to two divisions. It also padded players statistics somehting awful. World class wingers like Boston and Bevan wee scoring tries for fun against weak teams. Thats's what makes Offiah's total so amazing. All his tries were scored at the top level.

I'm not advocating any return to that system but, attendancewise, the lower teams would survive on the gates they got against Leeds, Hull, Wakefield and the top teams in those days.

Really. Well, according to the point made, there should have been no blowouts in a four team league because it was small and the teams would be more equal. The fact that i played in a four team league and there were, in fact, blowouts wouldos eem mto me to refute it, very well indeed in my opinion.

Really. Well, according to the point made, there should have been no blowouts in a four team league because it was small and the teams would be more equal. The fact that i played in a four team league and there were, in fact, blowouts would seem to me to refute it, very well indeed in my opinion.

You played in a four team amateur league that has no relevance to the point. There is a wealth of Superleague statistics over 17 years that will prove the point or disprove it. You should use those.

You would expect that because Leeds played what today are CC clubs and CC1 clubs in league fixtures.

That's not true at all. All the Yorkie clubs were in one league, all playing each other, and many were able to keep their decent players, who didn't all gravitate to the top clubs. The little Bramley I knew in 1973 were a decent outfit, Leeds were a very good side and they did Bramley 23-10 and 24-9. No blowouts. In different conditions today when the best players travel more they gravitate to the top sides, even the top kids go straight to top SL academies, and blowouts can occur within smaller divisions.

The danger of making superleague 16 clubs is the difference between the top and the bottom club.

Money helps bridge that gap. Take Leighs 2005 SL sojourn, only two wins and they shipped 62 at Wigan, 60 at Saints 74 and 60 against Leeds, 58 twice against Bradford. Leigh didn't have the money to compete.

Take Halifax 2003 who didn't get a league point, and shipped over 60 points six times that season, no money to compete.

Whatever we do with Superleague we need to make sure the clubs have even money, we need even competition.

We need it especially because when a club starts to lose big fans walk away. Halifax's crowd just about halved over the year, Leighs crowd lost 25% and IIRC many fans just slung their season tickets.

Salford's crowds were dissapointing last year. The visit of Saints only drew an average crowd.

The top four battle in SL last year saw some great games and several upsets. Cats blew Wire away with 44 points.

The bottom four battle was equally tight although half a dozen games saw clubs win scoring over 40 but letting in quite a few themselves at the same time.

The top four against the bottom four involved 32 games of which the top four lost 4 of them. In winning the other 28 they scored as high as 76 with a couple of 60's and a few 50's.

1. As per the previous post the MAIN factor regarding competitiveness in a professional league is money because money = good players.

2. If money is equal then competitiveness improves, but then the problem shifts to quality of player, especially if there's a shortage.

So if we had both a shortage of money AND quality players then the pressure would be on to reduce the size of Superleague and quite right too.

As we seem to have people with money coming in I feel the pressure is on to stay at 14.

If going to 16 meant we'd pull in clubs with no money and last pick of the best players then they'd be just like Halifax 2003 and Leigh 2005 and this is damaging to the game as it puts fans off.

It's the case that in going to 14 clubs in 2009 from 12 in 2008 SL average attendances dropped from 9,800 to 8,700.

I'm not going to argue that if you drop to 10 clubs averages would shoot over the 10,000 mark (which they probably would) because the danger becomes that people gradually get cheesed off with playing the same clubs 3,4,5 times.

There's a very tough balance to strike to sort out what is best for THE GAME when it comes to how do we operate Superleague.

One thing that does seem a strong principle is Superleague needs clubs who all have the money required to compete. We have 11 of those clubs, and may if deals come off end up with 13 of those clubs.

Then (as Kenny points out) we have Castleford. Then (as shedloads of fans point out) we MAY have Nahaboo, IF he's going to spend seven figures, rather than six. Then we have Toulouse - loadsa money no players.

Logic could dictate 12 or 14 clubs in SL 2015 as the only choice UNLESS they re-balance the finances.

Really. Well, according to the point made, there should have been no blowouts in a four team league because it was small and the teams would be more equal. The fact that i played in a four team league and there were, in fact, blowouts wouldos eem mto me to refute it, very well indeed in my opinion.

You've picked out one example. I'd reject it on sample size alone.

Less teams, less games, less opportunity for "blow-out" scores (or, indeed, scores of any description )

And I'll be amazed if it's not the bottom four teams who are involved in most" blow-outs".

That's not true at all. All the Yorkie clubs were in one league, all playing each other, and many were able to keep their decent players, who didn't all gravitate to the top clubs. The little Bramley I knew in 1973 were a decent outfit, Leeds were a very good side and they did Bramley 23-10 and 24-9. No blowouts. In different conditions today when the best players travel more they gravitate to the top sides, even the top kids go straight to top SL academies, and blowouts can occur within smaller divisions.

It's worth pointing out that, 40 or 50 years ago, as part timers, players would play for a club which fitted in conveniently with the rest of their lives and not necessarily for the team who paid most money. Obviously, there were exceptions but, generally, players didn't travel as far. The M62 definitely made a difference in terms of reducing travel times. Once we have full time players, of course, distance becomes (pretty much) no barrier.

That's not true at all. All the Yorkie clubs were in one league, all playing each other, and many were able to keep their decent players, who didn't all gravitate to the top clubs. The little Bramley I knew in 1973 were a decent outfit, Leeds were a very good side and they did Bramley 23-10 and 24-9. No blowouts. In different conditions today when the best players travel more they gravitate to the top sides, even the top kids go straight to top SL academies, and blowouts can occur within smaller divisions.

The danger of making superleague 16 clubs is the difference between the top and the bottom club.

Money helps bridge that gap. Take Leighs 2005 SL sojourn, only two wins and they shipped 62 at Wigan, 60 at Saints 74 and 60 against Leeds, 58 twice against Bradford. Leigh didn't have the money to compete.

Take Halifax 2003 who didn't get a league point, and shipped over 60 points six times that season, no money to compete.

Whatever we do with Superleague we need to make sure the clubs have even money, we need even competition.

We need it especially because when a club starts to lose big fans walk away. Halifax's crowd just about halved over the year, Leighs crowd lost 25% and IIRC many fans just slung their season tickets.

Salford's crowds were dissapointing last year. The visit of Saints only drew an average crowd.

Foregone conclusions costs the game fans by the bucketload.

I was a Keighley fan in those days and we were playing Leeds, Hull, Wakefield, Halifax and Huddersfield in league games. The team was regulalry smashed by 40 to 50 points in these fixtures and even when we were at home, we hardly ever won and this was when a try was worth 3 points. You are the big stats man, go look it up but I know what happened, I was there.

As for keeping out stars, the few we developed. Terry Hollindrake made the GB team, was sold to Hull, Derek Hallas, the same. Albert Eyres, whom we signed as a 16 years old, the same. Brian Todd, off to Saints. Keighley got the stars on their way down at the end of their careers, Garfield Owen from Halifax, Fred Ward from Hunslet, Gordon Brown from Leeds.

As I said, I am not advocating any kind of return to those days but it was a fact that the lower teams looked forward to home games against the big boys because the travelling support boosted the gates and produced much needed income for the club. Keighley drew 10,000 to lawkholme Lane for a cup tie against Wigan. The money was great but we got smashed. You just don't know what you are talking about.

The top four battle in SL last year saw some great games and several upsets. Cats blew Wire away with 44 points.

The bottom four battle was equally tight although half a dozen games saw clubs win scoring over 40 but letting in quite a few themselves at the same time.

The top four against the bottom four involved 32 games of which the top four lost 4 of them. In winning the other 28 they scored as high as 76 with a couple of 60's and a few 50's.

1. As per the previous post the MAIN factor regarding competitiveness in a professional league is money because money = good players.

2. If money is equal then competitiveness improves, but then the problem shifts to quality of player, especially if there's a shortage.

So if we had both a shortage of money AND quality players then the pressure would be on to reduce the size of Superleague and quite right too.

As we seem to have people with money coming in I feel the pressure is on to stay at 14.

If going to 16 meant we'd pull in clubs with no money and last pick of the best players then they'd be just like Halifax 2003 and Leigh 2005 and this is damaging to the game as it puts fans off.

It's the case that in going to 14 clubs in 2009 from 12 in 2008 SL average attendances dropped from 9,800 to 8,700.

I'm not going to argue that if you drop to 10 clubs averages would shoot over the 10,000 mark (which they probably would) because the danger becomes that people gradually get cheesed off with playing the same clubs 3,4,5 times.

There's a very tough balance to strike to sort out what is best for THE GAME when it comes to how do we operate Superleague.

One thing that does seem a strong principle is Superleague needs clubs who all have the money required to compete. We have 11 of those clubs, and may if deals come off end up with 13 of those clubs.

Then (as Kenny points out) we have Castleford. Then (as shedloads of fans point out) we MAY have Nahaboo, IF he's going to spend seven figures, rather than six. Then we have Toulouse - loadsa money no players.

Logic could dictate 12 or 14 clubs in SL 2015 as the only choice UNLESS they re-balance the finances.

I absolutely don't see how any of that very long post points nto the fact that in a 10 team league there would be no blowouts.

As I said, I am not advocating any kind of return to those days but it was a fact that the lower teams looked forward to home games against the big boys because the travelling support boosted the gates and produced much needed income for the club. Keighley drew 10,000 to lawkholme Lane for a cup tie against Wigan. The money was great but we got smashed. You just don't know what you are talking about.

Of course the lower teams looked forward to the big boys. It was a big payday for them, win or lose. No wonder the big boys got peed off with being treated as some sort of piggy bank.

Somebody remind me - after the return to one division in 1964, didn't the fixture formula switch from Yorkshire/Lancashire to Top15/Bottom15 ? With a few added fixtures to bring them up to the desired 34......

That's not true at all. All the Yorkie clubs were in one league, all playing each other, and many were able to keep their decent players, who didn't all gravitate to the top clubs. The little Bramley I knew in 1973 were a decent outfit, Leeds were a very good side and they did Bramley 23-10 and 24-9. No blowouts. In different conditions today when the best players travel more they gravitate to the top sides, even the top kids go straight to top SL academies, and blowouts can occur within smaller divisions.

The other thing that occurs to me is that defence was more favoured forty years ago and scores were generally lower - even adjusting for the extra point for a try.

The other thing that occurs to me is that defence was more favoured forty years ago and scores were generally lower - even adjusting for the extra point for a try.

There were regular blowouts. It was even worse in Lancashire. Liverpool City, Blackpool, even Whitehaven used to get thrashed by the big boys from Saints, Wigan, Oldham. Defence was more favoured, really, the leading try scorers used to be regulalrly in the 40, 50 or even 60 try range and there would be 5 to 10 of them and even forwards like Martyn at Leigh used to get 20 tries.. But, of course there were no .blowouts. I remember vividly going to Leigh who were no more than mid table and coming back having been given a 40 point beating.